In contract law, intent is the key part, so if the "hole" is truly unexpected (e.g. the most significant errors that come to mind would be an accidental omission of "not" which completely reverses the meaning of the contract; or perhaps a mistaken swap in the description of who pays whom) then it would be reasonable to demonstrate that is was not what either of the parties intended, and thus that single mistaken word simply does not matter and would be ignored.

What you do get in contract disputes where specific wording matters is in edge cases where you might reasonably assert that both parties wanted (and agreed) A or not-A for some specific situation as part of the negotiation, disputing where exactly some boundary lies - but not for the core parts or complete reversal. On the other hand, automatically enforced "smart contracts" don't make such a distinction and any typo can reverse the core meaning of the contract as well.